Re: new 25' piece in 19-tet and JI

>
> ***Hello, Chris!
>
> Well, this certainly is an accomplishment, and a *very* interesting
> webpage. Not only the music, but the background computer
> construction and the esthetic discussion. Lots of stuff here, that's
> for sure.

Thanks for looking & listening!!

>
> I had some questions, personally, about some of the ideas
> of "flatness" since I don't feel that Xenakis and Ferneyhough are
> really "flat..." Boulez and Babbitt I can see, as well as Cage.

Well, it depends on which piece. . .sometimes (as in Cage's case) on the
particular performance of a given piece. Some Xenakis is very
"flat"--try Herma or Nomos Alpha---some nice things in there, but very
hard to just listen to all the way through! (Same with certain pieces of
B. Ferneyhough. . )

>
> And Feldman wasn't mentioned right off the top. Don't they like him
> at Columbia...? [I had to get that joke in...]

Well, I though I had heard "flat" used by Feldman, but when I looked
around, I couldn't find the reference. Besides, both his music, and the
art of Rothko, with which it is associated, I don't find to be flat,
simply because it's "slow" enough that it doesn't "lose" you.
(See the part called "Towards a Formal Definition of Flatness" near the
end of Chapter One of the paper.)

>
> Well, the piece really changes a lot. Sometimes it really *does*
> sound like Cage, other times like minimalism...
>
> The samples really sound great and listening in a "micro" way, as you
> recommend, seems quite rewarding.
>
> I'm hoping to listen to the entire soon, but I gave it a pretty
> good "sample" at the moment.
>
> Nice to know this is all in 19-tET, too...
>
> Congrats to you!
>
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
> >
> > /makemicromusic/topicId_4056.html#4056
>
> <cb202@c...> wrote:
> >
> > http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/dissert.html
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > This is a new piece I wrote over a period of about a year.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey

/makemicromusic/topicId_4089.html#4089

>
> Well, I though I had heard "flat" used by Feldman, but when I looked
> around, I couldn't find the reference. Besides, both his music,
and the
> art of Rothko, with which it is associated, I don't find to be flat,
> simply because it's "slow" enough that it doesn't "lose" you.
> (See the part called "Towards a Formal Definition of Flatness" near
the
> end of Chapter One of the paper.)
>

***Hi Chris...

Well then I guess I find your definition of "flatness" confusing. I
thought you were associating it with "micro form"... or at least it
seemed so in your essay with its colorful paintings.

In that sense a piece such as Cage's _Concerto for Prepared Piano and
Orchestra_ would be a "flat" piece, or one where one has to listen to
moment by moment.

HOWEVER, that certainly doesn't mean the piece is not of interest to
the listener if you listen in such a "micro" way. Similarly, it
seems your *own* music uses the same kind of paradigm... it doesn't
have a discernable overall *macro* form, at least not in quite a bit
of the recent work, but the *micro* form is *very* interesting, since
the samples are so good.

I felt the same way about the Cage concerto. I heard it performed in
New York brilliantly by Dennis Russell Davies. The trick is to make
*every* sound a brilliant moment, every instant. So, in *my*
opinion, the quality of such a piece can vary *greatly* depending on
the interpretation. Of course Cage would disagree with this view, at
least according to his doctrinaire philosophy...

From what I have heard, it seems some of your *earlier* work was more
like Feldman in its sustained pitches and slow motion, but you seem
to be going now in a *different* direction, possibly as a response to
the use of the computer and samples as a creative tool...

Still, I don't believe an "inability to follow or get through" or any
such should be a part of your "flatness" paradigm.

That's just an indication of *bad music* regardless of the style!

J. Pehrson